Looper's Delight Archive Top (Search)
Date Index
Thread Index
Author Index
Looper's Delight Home
Mailing List Info

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]

Re: An Open Apology to Kim



Sorry folks. I thought I had explained my point plenty well already, but 
apparently not. Rick insists I have to answer directly each of his posts. 
I'll limit it to two. Since I already made all of these points answering 
other people's posts, this will be pretty repetitive. It sure feels that 
way to me.

At 09:46 AM 5/26/2003, Rick Walker/Loop.pooL wrote:
>It's also important to say that I guess I just get a little tired of 
>people
>(and not necessarily you, Kim) constantly putting down the people who
>actually like to be called loopers.

are there people doing that? I haven't heard it I guess.

Most people calling themselves "loopers" are describing their role in the 
creation of the music. Like somebody who plays trumpet calling themselves 
a 
"trumpeter". It describes tools, techniques, and instruments.

Conflict erupts when people try to use "Looping" to refer to particular 
genres of music, whether they mean to or not. (or styles, categories, 
types 
etc. I seem to use these words interchangeably, sorry.) When you go out 
into the world promoting "Looping" or "Live Looping" it sure looks like 
that's what you are doing. When that happens it threatens to confuse what 
a 
"Looper" is, since it suddenly starts referring to a particular type of 
music. Then lots of people get pissed off because their self-descriptive 
use of "Looper" suddenly means they play that type of music when they 
don't. So they either fight back or they avoid anything at all to do with 
the word "Looper".


>There is ,of course, always a constant danger of preaching to the 
>converted
>of course, but the fact of the matter is thatrallying together as a
>community of people with common cause
>who are interested in promoting and learning about the thing that they 
>love
>is not a bad thing.

yes, that is what we do here at Looper's Delight. The point though is that 
"Looping" is generally an idea being promoted to other musicians as a type 
of instrument or tool or technique. The goal is to get more musicians 
interested in Looping. It is not promoted as a musical style or genre or 
whatever, because it isn't one for one thing. But also because that works 
directly against the idea of promoting Looping to a wider range of 
musicians.


>you wrote:
>". But I don't see how it does much to directly promote looping outside of
>that realm."
>
>I actually challenge your assertion that looping festivals don't promote 
>to
>people outside of the realm. I have played to literally thousands of
>non-loopers in the 25 some odd Looping festivals,several looping tours 
>and 
>dozens of solo, duo and trio gigs that I have done as a self professed 
>Live Looping Artist. I calculated that I performed on local FM radio last 
>year a total of over 12 hours.  That went to out to thousands of 
>'normals' 
>(lol)
>in my region and over in the South Bay (with several million people within
>earshot). I was interviewed in countless magazine articles and, indeed, 
>we 
>had a long cover article on the Metro newspaper which went out to most 
>people in our county (100,000 population) on specifically the Live 
>Looping 
>Movement.  I've had strong interest from both national and international 
>electronic music magazines and currently have a 30 minute television 
>special rotating constantly on local cable access as we speak.

Rick, your efforts are amazing. But doesn't this mean all these people now 
think "Live Looping" is a type of music that sounds like Rick Walker?

When we are promoting Looping to other musicians, as we do with Looper's 
Delight, there is a clear description of Looping being more of an 
instrument or a set of tools that musicians can use for whatever type of 
music they like. Musicians can readily understand that this is about the 
tools. However, when you promote this idea of "Live Looping" to the public 
they will naturally understand it as a type of music, not a type of 
instrument. Non-musicians don't care very much what instruments are used 
or 
how they are played, they care about the musical result they hear and 
whether they like that or not.

That is the problem that frustrates people here. When you go out into the 
public and say "Hey everybody, come check out this new Live-Looping 
scene", 
the public will understand that to mean a style of music. When they do 
come 
check it out, whatever they hear first will equal the "Live Looping" genre 
for them, and they will judge if they like it or not. That's a problem for 
everybody else. Using the term in such a way harms everyone else's ability 
to promote themselves since it now refers to some other style of music.

On the other hand, if you go out promoting "Live Looping" to the world as 
including all sorts of different types of music, ordinary listeners will 
just be confused. You are really promoting the 
tools/instruments/techniques 
side. That is all the term "Live Looping" can mean if it's not about the 
musical result people listen to. It's just like promoting "Trumpeting" to 
the masses. That's great, but you have to realize the only people 
interested will be musicians who currently play that instrument or are 
considering it. That's a really small market. Most other people don't care 
about the tools, they care about the resulting music. What use is "Live 
Looping" to them if it is any kind of music? They will only find this term 
confusing and not useful in helping them find music they like. Marketing 
"Live Looping" to the non-musician world is pointless if there is no 
obvious style of music for them to respond to.

So that's why I don't understand this as a mass marketing strategy. Either 
it's pointless if there is no genre associated with it or it's harmful if 
there is.


>   All kudos to the solo bass movement but using that angle with
>reporters just fell flat on it's face whereas talking about the metaphor 
>and
>technology that surrounded that auspicious event really excited the
>journalists and I think for three salient reasons:
>1) It was new and they didn't know about the technology so it peaked their
>interest

with all due respect, you are in Santa Cruz, CA.  Santa Cruz is an 
eclectic, affluent suburb to Silicon Valley, the tech center of the world. 
Anything weird, arty, and related to technology will immediately get any 
journalist's interest when serving that area. But it hardly represents 
most 
of the rest of the world.

Also, novelties sell papers. When the novelty is used up, then what?


>this last fact can't be overemphasized:   We have had a really awful time
>with the notion of community in our culture (Northern California at 
>least) 
>sense the end of the 1960s and people are so hungry for it that they are 
>fascinated (almost universally when I talk to most 'normals') by the fact 
>that a lot of people have that feeling of inclusion.

This bit seems strange, and sort of unrelated. Is this one of those "when 
I 
was young everything was better" nostalgia trips? Look around. There are 
little scenes and communities everywhere. People gravitate into all sorts 
of little groups. I love finding them. I spent the past few weeks 
traveling 
around Northern California and found them everywhere. Artisan communities 
on the Mendocino coast. Snowboarders at the top of Squaw Valley. RV people 
in campgrounds. Boating people on mountain lakes. Latino communities in 
the 
central coast. Metal sculpture artists in Oakland. The Indian community of 
the guys I work with. Innkeepers. The black community I live in. Community 
groups in small towns. etc etc. It's really fascinating, but it's also 
really real. If you keep pining after the past, you'll miss the present.

>I'm not saying that everyone who uses a looper needs to feel a part of 
>that
>specific community (merely defined as the people who think of themselves 
>as
>live loopers). Far be it from the truth.

It appears to me that people using Loopers were not having any problem 
feeling a part of the Looping community when we were just talking about it 
as the tools and instruments we use to create music. We all share the 
common bond of using the same type of instrument and techniques, and 
that's 
why the community of Looper's Delight exists. Musicians with a common 
instrument sharing ideas and what not.

It was only when a few people started trying to make "Looping" or "Live 
Looping" into something beyond just the musicians using the tools that 
people suddenly want to disassociate themselves. How is that building 
community?


>I'm saying that what is,  IS!!!

right. What IS, is "Looping" has already been in use for a long time to 
describe instruments, tools, and techniques used by many people. Suddenly 
trying to give it a new meaning now causes conflict. Adding "Live" doesn't 
really change it that much.


>How can this be a bad thing? Why do people constantly get upset that we
>are just trying to promote a community.

Maybe you should take that reaction as a clue that something is wrong with 
your approach?


>If we called ourselves the STRANGE HAT COMMUNITY and did exactly what we 
>are
>trying to do I say that the world is a tiny bit better for our efforts 
>and 
>that we should actually be applauded.

Precisely. If you came up with a different phrase that didn't already have 
a clear usage and meaning, and wasn't already used by tons of people, 
there 
wouldn't be any conflict.

kim


______________________________________________________________________
Kim Flint                     | Looper's Delight
kflint@loopers-delight.com    | http://www.loopers-delight.com